WAR ON DRUGS A WAR ON IDEAS

The American Inquisition got another one last month. Singer Dionne Warwick,
who was found with nearly a dozen marijuana cigarettes at the Miami
airport, had her charges dropped in return for promising to undergo "drug
treatment" and to make anti-drug public service announcements.

Let's not dwell on the fact that a poor kid found with a few joints in a
bad neighborhood isn't offered the same deal Warwick got. The two- tier
system of punishment for drug offenses is old news. Just look what happens
when the child of a senator is caught with contraband.

Rather, let's look at what Warwick's case says about the "war on drugs" per
se, which is not a war on drugs at all, but a war on people. This
modern-day Inquisition is designed to hunt down drug heretics. Ultimately,
its victims are punished not just for what they do, but also for what they
think. And what they think are forbidden thoughts about drugs.

Instead of believing, say, that a glass of wine is OK but a joint is bad,
they may think that a joint is not much different from a glass of wine. We
can't have people thinking that. That's why Warwick was offered the deal.
As a celebrity, she is more valuable as a convert than as a convict.

That the Inquisition is aimed at thoughts can be readily seen in the terms
of her deal. To avoid trial, she had to promise to attend "drug treatment."
What happened there? She certainly was not treated for drug use the way a
physician would treat her for a stomach ulcer or high blood pressure.

This "treatment" consisted of talk by her and by psychiatrists,
psychologists and other mental health personnel. What did they say? The
experts probably told her lies about marijuana that are only slightly more
sophisticated than those told in the government's old propaganda film
"Reefer Madness."

Warwick, under obvious duress, perhaps said she was stressed and thought
that marijuana would help her to relax. Or maybe the professionals explored
how low self-esteem "caused" her to use drugs. Or maybe her interest in
drugs was attributed to mental illness. (If so, why is criminal law involved?)

She probably said she saw the error of her ways and wouldn't repeat the
offense. Nationwide, taxpayers pay hundreds of millions of dollars to
finance this inflated nonsense called "treatment." Most of the people there
are trying to stay out of jail.

Then there are those public service announcements. Here is where Warwick
will do public penance by recanting her heresy. She will probably tell kids
not to use illegal drugs. How convincing will she be?

Until recently, Warwick apparently saw nothing wrong with using marijuana.
She "got religion" (an apt phrase here) just after criminal charges were
filed against her and then dropped. A coincidence? If not, why should
anyone believe anything she says about drugs? It's likely that she'll
deliver her anti-drug message only because she could go to jail if she
refuses. When someone has that strong a personal interest in making a
statement that conflicts with his or her own previous conduct, we are
entitled to skepticism, if not outright incredulity.

Does the government think we are so dumb that we will take Warwick's public
service announcements seriously? Yes, it does. It is striking how much of
what the government does is comprehensible once you realize that it thinks
most Americans are idiots.

While Warwick will avoid prison in return for her re-education and public
recantation, others are not so fortunate. Prison statistics are a scandal.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 57% of federal
prisoners in 1999 were drug offenders. That's more than 68,000 people. In
1997, state prisons held 251,200 drug offenders, about 20% of the overall
population of state prisons. A disproportionate number of those prisoners
are black.

Americans are losing their liberty for having unapproved ideas - and acting
on them peacefully - about substances they should be free to ingest. That
loss of liberty is unworthy of a self-described free society.